1. Is Rule 10B, Rules Of The Supreme Court Of The
State Of Tennessee (" Rule 10B ") (App. C, No. 6) (App.
pp. 7a-10a) a structural constitutional violation1 of the
Fourteenth Amendment, Due Process Clause, United
States Constitution (" Fourteenth Amendment ") (App.
C, No. 1) (App. C p. 5a)?

2. If Rule 10B (App. C pp. 7a-10a), itself, is a structural
constitutional violation of the Fourteenth Amendment,
is Rule 10B, per se, facially unconstitutional?

3. Is the right of every litigant in the United States to access
a judge who, according to Williams v. Pennsylvania ,
579 U.S. 1 (2016) (" Williams ")2 and Rippo v. Baker, 580
U.S. 285 (2017) (" Rippo "), is constitutionally qualified an
unconditional, non-waivable/non-forfeitable structural
constitutional right?3

4. Is the structural constitutional right of every
litigant in the United States to access a court with
subject matter jurisdiction a companion structural
constitutional right of litigants, access to a judge who
is constitutionally qualified?

Whether Rule 10B of the Tennessee Supreme Court Rules constitutes a structural constitutional violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause and whether litigants have an unconditional right to access a constitutionally qualified judge